Jump to content

I understand that you cannot bury a cache


Hellolost

Recommended Posts

but can I use a hole that is already in the ground and camo the top of a container? The container wouldn't be buried exactly. It would just be placed in a hole. The entire top would be camo.

 

The FAQ bans the use of shovels, spades and pointy objects as a requirement to unearth a cache.

 

If these are not needed, then you should be fine.

Link to comment

The only comment I have is that when you get permission from the landowner that you let him know that you didn't dig the hole. The guideline is there to make sure that geocaching doesn't get a black eye. If lots of people started digging holes then it would cause problems and geocaching could be banned from parks.

Link to comment

The only comment I have is that when you get permission from the landowner that you let him know that you didn't dig the hole. The guideline is there to make sure that geocaching doesn't get a black eye. If lots of people started digging holes then it would cause problems and geocaching could be banned from parks.

 

Glad someone said this.

 

- Rev Mike

Link to comment

but can I use a hole that is already in the ground and camo the top of a container? The container wouldn't be buried exactly. It would just be placed in a hole. The entire top would be camo.

 

The FAQ bans the use of shovels, spades and pointy objects as a requirement to unearth a cache.

 

If these are not needed, then you should be fine.

 

Just a clarification, the guidelines prohibit the use of shovels, spades and pointy objects to recover or PLACE a cache.

 

Pre-existing holes are permitted. A caveat is that if it is an animal hole and the animal still lives there you may find your cache unearthed by said occupant.

Link to comment

Just a clarification, the guidelines prohibit the use of shovels, spades and pointy objects to recover or PLACE a cache.

 

Pre-existing holes are permitted. A caveat is that if it is an animal hole and the animal still lives there you may find your cache unearthed by said occupant.

 

While I understand the reasons, does their use to PLACE the cache still hold if the land owner has expressly given permission to make a hole to sink the cache into? Or what if the landowner themselves actually makes the hole for the purpose of placing the cache?

 

I'm not trying to nitpick here, but I'm currently in the planning stages of a multi where the land manager has approached me (rather than the other way round) with a view to placing a cache to help educate visiting cachers about the site itself. We haven't decided on the final cache location yet, but one option was going to be a sunken cache with a camouflaged top. No digging required to remove it, but it would keep the visible surface area reasonably low and (hopefully) reduce the chances of being discovered by muggles.

Link to comment
Just a clarification, the guidelines prohibit the use of shovels, spades and pointy objects to recover or PLACE a cache.

 

Pre-existing holes are permitted. A caveat is that if it is an animal hole and the animal still lives there you may find your cache unearthed by said occupant.

While I understand the reasons, does their use to PLACE the cache still hold if the land owner has expressly given permission to make a hole to sink the cache into? Or what if the landowner themselves actually makes the hole for the purpose of placing the cache?

 

I'm not trying to nitpick here, but I'm currently in the planning stages of a multi where the land manager has approached me (rather than the other way round) with a view to placing a cache to help educate visiting cachers about the site itself. We haven't decided on the final cache location yet, but one option was going to be a sunken cache with a camouflaged top. No digging required to remove it, but it would keep the visible surface area reasonably low and (hopefully) reduce the chances of being discovered by muggles.

It is my understanding that the guideline still applies. If the hole was created for the purposes of placing the cache, it should not be listed. It doesn't matter if the land manager authorized the hole, dug the hole, or if you are the land owner. Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

Just a clarification, the guidelines prohibit the use of shovels, spades and pointy objects to recover or PLACE a cache.

 

Pre-existing holes are permitted. A caveat is that if it is an animal hole and the animal still lives there you may find your cache unearthed by said occupant.

 

While I understand the reasons, does their use to PLACE the cache still hold if the land owner has expressly given permission to make a hole to sink the cache into? Or what if the landowner themselves actually makes the hole for the purpose of placing the cache?

 

I'm not trying to nitpick here, but I'm currently in the planning stages of a multi where the land manager has approached me (rather than the other way round) with a view to placing a cache to help educate visiting cachers about the site itself. We haven't decided on the final cache location yet, but one option was going to be a sunken cache with a camouflaged top. No digging required to remove it, but it would keep the visible surface area reasonably low and (hopefully) reduce the chances of being discovered by muggles.

 

Digging holes, even with permission strays into an area that is more clearly understood if there is NO DIGGING OF HOLES.

 

Be more creative. Holes can be dug for many purposes ... their ultimate use is a matter for you and the Landowner. I would not try to list a cache that had involved digging a hole simply because it blurs a booundary that can only lead to trouble.

Link to comment
Just a clarification, the guidelines prohibit the use of shovels, spades and pointy objects to recover or PLACE a cache.

 

Pre-existing holes are permitted. A caveat is that if it is an animal hole and the animal still lives there you may find your cache unearthed by said occupant.

While I understand the reasons, does their use to PLACE the cache still hold if the land owner has expressly given permission to make a hole to sink the cache into? Or what if the landowner themselves actually makes the hole for the purpose of placing the cache?

 

I'm not trying to nitpick here, but I'm currently in the planning stages of a multi where the land manager has approached me (rather than the other way round) with a view to placing a cache to help educate visiting cachers about the site itself. We haven't decided on the final cache location yet, but one option was going to be a sunken cache with a camouflaged top. No digging required to remove it, but it would keep the visible surface area reasonably low and (hopefully) reduce the chances of being discovered by muggles.

It is my understanding that the guideline still applies. If the hole was created for the purposes of placing the cache, it should not be listed. It doesn't matter if the land manager authorized the hole, dug the hole, or if you are the land owner.

 

sbell is correct in my understanding also. In most places if you look around you can find a lot of holes/depressions in the ground to place a cache. One of my caches is in a natural hole under a tree that gets lots of comments that infer that the finder thinks the hole was dug for the cache. It is actually a spot near a river that used to drain all the way to the water. The bottom of the hole was filled with some sticks and stones and over time the dirt running into it has filled in the area under the cache quite nicely.

 

I have also seen caches placed in various gopher holes in the area. Once the gopher leaves the area the hole is easy to place a cache into.

Link to comment

I have also seen caches placed in various gopher holes in the area. Once the gopher leaves the area the hole is easy to place a cache into.

How does one determine that a gopher no longer uses the hole?

 

As a long time shooter of theses little buggers - even old holes will be claimed by new chucks - If it's there, someone will at sometime move in.

Link to comment

...While I understand the reasons, does their use to PLACE the cache still hold if the land owner has expressly given permission to make a hole to sink the cache into? Or what if the landowner themselves actually makes the hole for the purpose of placing the cache?...

 

Approvable but you have to make a good case for why it should be approved becuase you are essentially lobbing to be the exceptoin to the no bury rule.

 

The cache has to be such that the fact it's buried won't ever come back to bite caching in the butt.

 

I've seen these caches.

Link to comment

While I understand the reasons, does their use to PLACE the cache still hold if the land owner has expressly given permission to make a hole to sink the cache into? Or what if the landowner themselves actually makes the hole for the purpose of placing the cache?

 

I'm not trying to nitpick here, but I'm currently in the planning stages of a multi where the land manager has approached me (rather than the other way round) with a view to placing a cache to help educate visiting cachers about the site itself. We haven't decided on the final cache location yet, but one option was going to be a sunken cache with a camouflaged top. No digging required to remove it, but it would keep the visible surface area reasonably low and (hopefully) reduce the chances of being discovered by muggles.

Technically, if you absolutely follow the guidelines to the letter, it doesn't matter if you own the property or have permission from the land owner: you can't dig (also, technically, while the guidelines say "bury", all reviewers I know of interpret it to mean "dig".

 

The primary reason usually given is the possibility that another land manager (say, someone on a city park board) is trying to see what this "geocashing" thing is all about. Said land manager picks a random geocache to find, sees that it is buried, doesn't want that to happen on his land, and so doesn't allow any geocaching on land he controls. A secondary reason given is to prevent person B from seeing the buried cache hidden by person A and trying to hide one just like it without permission. Then raising a stink when cache B is archived when complaints are filed or is denied before listing.

 

HOWEVER, I've seen at least one reviewer/moderator on these fora (I don't remember which forum or which person, and I don't feel like searching) state that if the hider owns the land he doesn't care if the hider uses a backhoe to hide the cache (paraphrase). And realistically, he's right. If I own some land, then I can do whatever landscaping I want (assuming it follows local codes and laws). And if I want, I can leave a cache-container-sized hole in the ground while doing that landscaping. The next day I go out to hide a cache, and: Look! An existing hole!

Link to comment

The key to the oldest active cache is that though it is buried there is something visible on the surface.

Make sure that cachers will be aware of the location of the cache nad then they wil;l not be tempted to start to scrape the surrounding area. One trick used some time ago was to lay two sticks in parallel across the top - this is great provided they do not get moved!

Link to comment

If you followed every rule to the T and followed Leave No Trace to a T, you wouldn't be able to plant any caches at all, period.

 

So stop consulting these forums and go plant your cache using uncommon sense.

 

It'd be a miracle if all of these "permission" hypocrites actually got permission for their own hides.

Link to comment
The key to the oldest active cache is that though it is buried there is something visible on the surface.

That's a common misconception about a "buried" cache. It does not have to be completely covered by ground to be buried. The fact that a shovel or pointy object was used to submerge the container means it's buried and a guidelines violation.

Link to comment

I have also seen caches placed in various gopher holes in the area. Once the gopher leaves the area the hole is easy to place a cache into.

How does one determine that a gopher no longer uses the hole?

Dude-you've never seen Caddyshack?? :D

 

Drop a nice healthy gopher snake down the hole and I guarantee there will be no gophers. Tidy, 100% organic and they stick around until the gophers are gone in a good-sized area. Plus they don't bite if handled kindly. I've done this a few times over the years at home (they are native to the area) and never have a problem with gophers digging up my yard.

Link to comment

 

Approvable but you have to make a good case for why it should be approved becuase you are essentially lobbing to be the exceptoin to the no bury rule.

 

The cache has to be such that the fact it's buried won't ever come back to bite caching in the butt.

 

I've seen these caches.

Me too. Is't the oldest active cache in the world in a hole dug by the owner? I've only found 846 but lots of them were in holes. Drilled holes, dug holes, natural holes in the ground, chain sawed holes in stumps and logs, knot holes and splits in live trees, holes drilled into rocks, lots of holes drilled into drift wood, can't remember how many hollow bolts I have found in guardrails and the number of fake bird houses and bird nest is almost up there with the hollow bolts. Caches you need sticks to reach, caches you need wire to retrieve, caches you even need a gallon of water to retrieve and one I had to make a 4ft long pair of tweezers using 2 limbs and some rubber bands to retrieve. Plus lots more ways I probably don't remember at the moment.

I think a reviewer would have a hard time following every situation for compliance to rules that change ever so ofter. It is hard for me to figure out if bridges are still banned with soo many caches (old and new), even ones that are named after bridges and state that it is on or under the bridge being approved.

Now if using a hammer drill with a carbide bit to drill a hole big enough to hold a 35MM film canister isn't using sharp tools to *hide* a cache, and that 35MM isn't now *buried* in something, what is? To me they are all fun, well except for the ones made out of tacks. :)

Link to comment

One needs to use common sense in this issue. The guideline about burying and digging must have come about as a result of real life experience of land managers not approving - it was not just arbitrarily thought up on a whim.

 

I have seen several caches in the ground, but with their tops exposed or slightly camouflaged, so that no digging tools are required. I can't see a problem with this. If one wants to be pedantic then it is akin to a micro sitting in a hole in a fence post.

 

Now one can go into a debate whether the hole was in the post or it was in the ground before you placed the cache or not ...

Link to comment
The key to the oldest active cache is that though it is buried there is something visible on the surface.
That's a common misconception about a "buried" cache. It does not have to be completely covered by ground to be buried. The fact that a shovel or pointy object was used to submerge the container means it's buried and a guidelines violation.

wigglesworth hit on a key reason why caches are hidden all the time in violation of enforced guidelines, even when the hiders actually did read the written guidelines and thought they understood them. Almost all definitions of "bury" require that you cover the object in question. You can actually bury something without doing any digging; just lay it on the ground and pile stuff on top of it (dirt, leaves, mulch, etc.). To just dig a hole (pointy object or not) and stick the object in it isn't considered burying by most people, so they think that this method of hiding a cache is acceptable. This is why I've petitioned before to change the prohibited cache guidelines to read something like:

 

"Caches that are buried require digging. If a shovel, trowel or other "pointy" object is used to dig, whether in order to hide or to find the cache, then it is not appropriate."

 

As is, people read the first 4 words (Caches that are buried), think, "my cache isn't covered, so it's not buried", and don't read the rest of that rule because it obviously doesn't apply to their cache.

Edited by J-Way
Link to comment
wigglesworth hit on a key reason why caches are hidden all the time in violation of enforced guidelines, even when the hiders actually did read the written guidelines and thought they understood them.

The guidelines ARE enforced as they're written:

 

Caches that are buried. If a shovel, trowel or other "pointy" object is used to dig, whether in order to hide or to find the cache, then it is not appropriate.

 

Are you saying it's a reading comprehension issue?

Link to comment

If a land manager is willing to permit a buried cache, I refer the land manager (not the cache owner) to Groundspeak for a discussion. If, after that discussion, Groundspeak gives the green light, I am happy to publish the cache as an exception to the listing guidelines. I think that's happened two or three times for me.

Link to comment
wigglesworth hit on a key reason why caches are hidden all the time in violation of enforced guidelines, even when the hiders actually did read the written guidelines and thought they understood them.

The guidelines ARE enforced as they're written:

Caches that are buried. If a shovel, trowel or other "pointy" object is used to dig, whether in order to hide or to find the cache, then it is not appropriate.

Are you saying it's a reading comprehension issue?

The guidelines are enforced as written in the second sentence, which is the one you highlighted. But not in the first sentence. And actually, yes, it is a reading comprehension issue.

 

Example:

so how does all this apply to fake sprinkler heads at ground level? found 1 of those this weekend and also a fake storm drain next to a curb.

I often see caches that most definitely required digging using a pointy object for placement, but they aren't "buried" because the top is not covered up. Either people just blatantly aren't reading or are ignoring the guidelines, or they assume that because the top is exposed and it isn't buried that particular rule doesn't apply to their cache. I like to assume people have good intentions in their actions (and therefore read and at least attempt to understand the guidelines), so there is obviously some sort of reading comprehension issue here.

 

Opposite example:

I placed a cache that would not be allowed if all you read are the first 4 words. I scraped aside pine needles adjacent to a large boulder with my hand, placed a cache in that spot, then covered it up with the pine needles. I buried the cache. But that cache is allowed because placement did not require a shovel, trowel, or other "pointy" object.

 

And please don't misunderstand my intentions here. I completely agree with the guidelines as I understand them. Basically, don't permanantly modify or deface the existing area using tools (including digging, drilling, writing, painting, marking, unbolting, screwing, or glueing).

 

[Edit to add "mis" in front of "understood", which completely changes the meaning of the last paragraph]

Edited by J-Way
Link to comment

The guidelines ARE enforced as they're written:

 

Caches that are buried. If a shovel, trowel or other "pointy" object is used to dig, whether in order to hide or to find the cache, then it is not appropriate.

 

Are you saying it's a reading comprehension issue?

I think J-way is pointing out that the word buried has a certain connotation to most people that means covered. Of course this is not what the guideline means because you can certainly bury a cache under a pile of sticks, or a pile of rocks, or cover the cache with leaves, and probably even cover the cache with loose soil or sand so long as you don't use a shovel, trowel, or other "pointy" object.

 

The use of the word buried in the guideline was probably due to objection that land managers gave to geocaching early on. They heard that geocaching was about using GPS coordinates to find "buried" treasure. They imagined hundreds of geocachers descending on their parks with shovels, digging holes all over a 3000 square foot area looking for a cache. In order to put a stop to this misconception and strengthen the argument for allowing geocaches in a park, the "no bury" guideline was adopted. I seem to recall that initially it only referred to finding caches and that partially exposed containers were allowed since they could be found without digging. In any case, it didn't take long to apply the no digging rule to hiding caches as well as park managers did not want to deal with people thinking it was OK to dig up their parks even to hide a cache. Of course there are many areas where digging a hole may be not be a issue, especially if done with permission. However, in order to address the concerns of land managers in certain parks that are concerned about the potential for damage caused by geocaching, the granting of such exception is rarely given (and as Keystone's post suggests, often involves direct contacts between the land manager and Groundspeak).

 

The real guideline that should be emphasized to both geocachers and land managers is the prohibition of caches that deface public or private property, whether a natural or man-made object, in order to provide a hiding place, a clue or a logging method. Geocachers must take care when hiding and finding caches not to damage or deface property. Land managers need to know that cachers know this and won't dig in inappropriate places, tear down stone walls, create new social trails where off trail hiking is prohibited, damage historic or archaeological artifacts, drill holes in fence posts or trees, etc. What is happening now is that there are few issues with land managers banning caching because someone dug a hole but many where some other damage was done that was blamed on geocachers, resulting in caching bans or other restrictions.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...